Chuck, you've outlined the case very well, and it is indeed a problem.
So what do we do about it?

The very first step has to be a huge reduction in government spending.

Each subsequent administration spends money even faster that the previous.
Until recently, each side had an excuse that the "other side" controlled either
the Executive Branch or Congress. Now that one party controls both, spending is
out of control like never before. We're borrowing almost $2 billion a day just
to keep up with
it. (to put that in perspective, every six weeks we're borrowing as much money
as congress appropriated last year to continue the war in Iraq!)

If we are going to reduce wages in the US,
and it seems that we must in order to compete with the third world, that money
that remains in a worker's paycheck has to count for something. High interest
rates (to support the government deficit) and high taxes collected either at
the time the spending is occurring or "postponed" until another party is in
power to absorb the political heat take far too much of the disposable income
from the average worker.

To say that taxes are the only problem, and that tax cuts without spending cuts
will solve it, is silly. Every dime of the deficit is a deferred taxation, we
just haven't scheduled the collection yet.

Just like $3mm a month CEO salaries, there is a lot of waste in the government.
Cutting out the waste would reduce the cost of government while leaving basic
services in tact.

Second step is to tax exported capital.
You want to send $1 billion US to East Overshirt to build a factory that will
put
35,000 Americans out of work? No problem, but we do have a bit of a tax you
need to pay to cover the social costs associated with your private
profiteering.
It just might be so high that you'll think twice about moving the
factory..........

Third step is to progressively eliminate social security, and the associated
taxation. It's too late to tell people in their 60's to start saving for
retirement because there isn't going to be any social security.
But it might not be too late to tell those
55-60 that their benefits will be only 95% of what they expect. Those 50-55
will have to
save enought to cover 10%. Ages 40-50
will get only 80%, ages 30-40 only 60%
(they have more decades to compound interest on savings), ages 20-30 only 30%,
and kids just starting off......zero.

When Uncle Harry or Aunt Georgia spends
every dime they ever earn and can't pay the rent in their "golden years" they
better hope the relatives will take them in.

There might ge a middle ground on Social Security. Nobody should be without
minimal and safe shelter or susbsistence food, and nobody should have to die
simply because medical treatment for an illness in unaffordable.
However, if able bodied and mentally alert people want to take the last few
decades of life "off" and not have to work for a living, it should be up to
them as individuals to arrange for that rather than up to all of us as a
society to guarantee it.

On 09 Jul 2004 16:16:46 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Chuck, you've outlined the case very well, and it is indeed a problem.
So what do we do about it?

The very first step has to be a huge reduction in government spending.

Then can I count on your support for republican congress people, who
have historically been more inclined to cut government spending?


Each subsequent administration spends money even faster that the previous.
Until recently, each side had an excuse that the "other side" controlled either
the Executive Branch or Congress.

The last administration managed to find a budget surplus, mostly due
to the efforts of the republicans in congress, who took great efforts
to cut spending.


Now that one party controls both, spending is
out of control like never before. We're borrowing almost $2 billion a day just
to keep up with
it. (to put that in perspective, every six weeks we're borrowing as much money
as congress appropriated last year to continue the war in Iraq!)

We are in a special circumstance. We're at war. Most of that spending
is toward the war effort. Once the war is over, things will settle
down again.


If we are going to reduce wages in the US,
and it seems that we must in order to compete with the third world, that money
that remains in a worker's paycheck has to count for something. High interest
rates (to support the government deficit) and high taxes collected either at
the time the spending is occurring or "postponed" until another party is in
power to absorb the political heat take far too much of the disposable income
from the average worker.

Hear hear!!!

To say that taxes are the only problem, and that tax cuts without spending cuts
will solve it, is silly. Every dime of the deficit is a deferred taxation, we
just haven't scheduled the collection yet.

The deficit is an illusion. It can be eliminated by the stroke of a
pen if desired. It has no effect on the interest rates charged by most
lenders, which are still at an all-time low. Only when inflation rears
its ugly head does the fed raise baseline interest rates.

Just like $3mm a month CEO salaries, there is a lot of waste in the government.
Cutting out the waste would reduce the cost of government while leaving basic
services in tact.

I agree. We need to stop spending money on things of questionable
worth. Such as entitlement for the arts, new sporting arenas,
healthcare for illegal immigrants, etc.

Second step is to tax exported capital.
You want to send $1 billion US to East Overshirt to build a factory that will
put
35,000 Americans out of work? No problem, but we do have a bit of a tax you
need to pay to cover the social costs associated with your private
profiteering.
It just might be so high that you'll think twice about moving the
factory..........

How is that different from an import tariff, as far as net effect? In
either case, the competitive edge of the U.S. corporation is lost to
foreign corporations. If the tax is excessive enough, it just might
drive the corporations off shore as well. They could just as soon set
up shop in the Bahamas or Bermuda, and thereby thumb their nose at the
U.S tax code. The end result is that in addition to factory workers,
the white collar office workers will be on the unemployment line. The
"rich" execs, will be living la-vida-loca in some nice tropical place
with no taxes.


Third step is to progressively eliminate social security, and the associated
taxation. It's too late to tell people in their 60's to start saving for
retirement because there isn't going to be any social security.
But it might not be too late to tell those
55-60 that their benefits will be only 95% of what they expect. Those 50-55
will have to
save enought to cover 10%. Ages 40-50
will get only 80%, ages 30-40 only 60%
(they have more decades to compound interest on savings), ages 20-30 only 30%,
and kids just starting off......zero.

That is EXACTLY my plan. And since many Americans are loth to stash
away cash for the future, the money that used to be deducted from your
pay to cover SS, would be instead deposited into an IRA, Roth, or
401K plan of your choosing.


When Uncle Harry or Aunt Georgia spends
every dime they ever earn and can't pay the rent in their "golden years" they
better hope the relatives will take them in.

That's sort of why I favor a mandatory IRA plan in leu of SS.

There might ge a middle ground on Social Security. Nobody should be without
minimal and safe shelter or susbsistence food, and nobody should have to die
simply because medical treatment for an illness in unaffordable.

Yes, but if you do provide it, someone has to pay for it, and the
costs go up again. It should be the responsibility of the individual
to plan for those eventualities while they are young.


However, if able bodied and mentally alert people want to take the last few
decades of life "off" and not have to work for a living, it should be up to
them as individuals to arrange for that rather than up to all of us as a
society to guarantee it.

Are you sure you're really a liberal Chuck? Those sound awfully close
to conservative ideas. ;-)

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On 09 Jul 2004 16:16:46 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Chuck, you've outlined the case very well, and it is indeed a problem.
So what do we do about it?

The very first step has to be a huge reduction in government spending.

Then can I count on your support for republican congress people, who
have historically been more inclined to cut government spending?

The ones who wrote a blank check to a monkey for a war whose goal could've
been met for under five hundred dollars a year by simply getting your
president a prescription for Viagra? Those Republican congress people?

Then can I count on your support for republican congress people, who
have historically been more inclined to cut government spending?

There is no correlation between party affiliation and irresponsible spending.
With a gop in the WH and gops controlling Congress, we *should* be running a
tight ship right now.

Alas:

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/


(here's where you come back with a retort about how it's really Clinton's
fault)


The last administration managed to find a budget surplus, mostly due
to the efforts of the republicans in congress, who took great efforts
to cut spending.

So, what happened? Without an opposing party Executive, the Republican Congress
has gone on a *wild* spending spree.

We are in a special circumstance. We're at war. Most of that spending
is toward the war effort. Once the war is over, things will settle
down again.

Nonsense. Anybody can look up the current federal budget and see that only a
small portion of our current super-expenditures are directly related to the
invasion of Iraq.

Has Bush vetoed a single spending bill, yet? (As of very recently he had not.)

Now here it gets a bit more confusing...............

I remarked:

High interest
rates (to support the government deficit) and high taxes collected either at
the time the spending is occurring or "postponed" until another party is in
power to absorb the political heat take far too much of the disposable
income
from the average worker.

and you replied:

Hear hear!!!

Was that because you failed to recognize the fiscal (phony tax cut) policy of
the Bush Administration expressed in such simple terms, or because you don't
support it?

..........

Are you sure you're really a liberal Chuck? Those sound awfully close
to conservative ideas. ;-)

Dave


It's a curve, not a straight line.

When you get far enough out to the left you do begin to catch a glimpse of some
of those folks on the extreme right, they're just coming around the same circle
from the other direction.

We extremists all have a common desire- we want the boot of government off our
neck. Many of the righties would then hope to create a Norman Rockwell
conformist religious utopia, while more of the lefties would rejoice in a new
era of personal intellectual freedom and self sufficiency.

How is that different from an import tariff, as far as net effect?

It's putting up a fight vs. meek capitulation.
"Oh well, it's inevitable. Might as well see our billioinaires become
zillionaires as a result, though"

On 09 Jul 2004 20:11:18 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Then can I count on your support for republican congress people, who
have historically been more inclined to cut government spending?

There is no correlation between party affiliation and irresponsible spending.
With a gop in the WH and gops controlling Congress, we *should* be running a
tight ship right now.

Alas:

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/


(here's where you come back with a retort about how it's really Clinton's
fault)

The economic downturn did start while he was on watch. But since I
don't blame specific ebbs and flows of the economy on any one
politician, you get a pass on that one.




The last administration managed to find a budget surplus, mostly due
to the efforts of the republicans in congress, who took great efforts
to cut spending.

So, what happened? Without an opposing party Executive, the Republican Congress
has gone on a *wild* spending spree.

We are in a special circumstance. We're at war. Most of that spending
is toward the war effort. Once the war is over, things will settle
down again.

Nonsense. Anybody can look up the current federal budget and see that only a
small portion of our current super-expenditures are directly related to the
invasion of Iraq.

Then what is the rest being spent on? Certainly we're not spending it
on entitlement programs (Except that lame prescription drug program,
than I'm a bit ****ed at Bush for supporting).



Has Bush vetoed a single spending bill, yet? (As of very recently he had not.)

Now here it gets a bit more confusing...............

I remarked:

High interest
rates (to support the government deficit) and high taxes collected either at
the time the spending is occurring or "postponed" until another party is in
power to absorb the political heat take far too much of the disposable
income
from the average worker.

and you replied:

Hear hear!!!

Was that because you failed to recognize the fiscal (phony tax cut) policy of
the Bush Administration expressed in such simple terms, or because you don't
support it?

I agree that the government takes far more money than it deserves from
people's pockets. I was more in agreement with your lead-in statement
in this paragraph (Which, for some reason you failed to include here).


.........

Are you sure you're really a liberal Chuck? Those sound awfully close
to conservative ideas. ;-)

Dave


It's a curve, not a straight line.

When you get far enough out to the left you do begin to catch a glimpse of some
of those folks on the extreme right, they're just coming around the same circle
from the other direction.

We extremists all have a common desire- we want the boot of government off our
neck. Many of the righties would then hope to create a Norman Rockwell
conformist religious utopia, while more of the lefties would rejoice in a new
era of personal intellectual freedom and self sufficiency.

Until you can get people to stop succumbing to the dark sides of human
nature, the leftist utopian society will never happen without
governmental oversight, which will severely limit personal freedoms.

Capitalism is the ultimate expression of freedom and liberty. You are
what you make of yourself. Since extreme leftists tend to demonize the
rich and successful, in order to push forth their idea of equality in
wealth. But since this cannot happen naturally, I cannot see this
happening without a big fight.

I'm sorry that you elected not to comment on my counter to your
corporate tax issue driving corporations from our country. Maybe I
shouldn't be surprised, because this is the point where many guys on
the left usually abandon the discussion. It's not so easy to come up
with good solutions is it? Many "solutions" breed bigger problems of
their own.

I'm not saying that I've got the answers. But I do see a pretty big
picture of the problem, and it's probably too late to change the road
that we're on. Our best bet is to adapt to the changing conditions,
and gravitate toward careers which are best suited to this country,
and not likely to be farmed out to lower paid workers in foreign
countries.

Dave

The economic downturn did start while he was on watch. But since I
don't blame specific ebbs and flows of the economy on any one
politician, you get a pass on that one.

"Economic downturn"? Where did that come from. Yes, the economy was less robust
in Clinton's final months, but we're discussing *government spending*. The
president is not directly responsible for boom and bust, but he OKs every
dollar spent by Congress during his watch. It *is*
reasonable to hold politicians accountable for government spending during their
terms.



Capitalism is the ultimate expression of freedom and liberty. You are
what you make of yourself. Since extreme leftists tend to demonize the
rich and successful, in order to push forth their idea of equality in
wealth.

Wake up, Dave. You're 50 years behind the times in your understanding of
liberalism.

On 13 Jul 2004 05:12:05 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

The economic downturn did start while he was on watch. But since I
don't blame specific ebbs and flows of the economy on any one
politician, you get a pass on that one.

"Economic downturn"? Where did that come from. Yes, the economy was less robust
in Clinton's final months, but we're discussing *government spending*. The
president is not directly responsible for boom and bust, but he OKs every
dollar spent by Congress during his watch. It *is*
reasonable to hold politicians accountable for government spending during their
terms.

I'd be curious as to see the precise details of each and every bill
that this president has signed, versus the previous president, and
compare to those vetoed and the reasons given.

Capitalism is the ultimate expression of freedom and liberty. You are
what you make of yourself. Since extreme leftists tend to demonize the
rich and successful, in order to push forth their idea of equality in
wealth.

Wake up, Dave. You're 50 years behind the times in your understanding of
liberalism.

I doubt that Chuck. I see it all the time. Every time someone shows
their bias against rich people, or those who somehow feel that the
rich should pay a disproportionately higher percentage of tax than any
one else, for no other reason than "they can afford it". All this so
that liberals can fix "the ills of society" by throwing taxpayer money
at it. That's counter to the basic principles of freedom (With
personal responsibility) and free market capitalism.

The further to the left your ideology goes, the closer to socialism
you get.

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

I'd be curious as to see the precise details of each and every bill
that this president has signed, versus the previous president, and
compare to those vetoed and the reasons given.


Liar. You're not curious at all. If you were, you'd simply call your
senator's office and ask for the information you mentioned above. You'd get
it, and easily.

I doubt that Chuck. I see it all the time. Every time someone shows
their bias against rich people, or those who somehow feel that the
rich should pay a disproportionately higher percentage of tax than any
one else, for no other reason than "they can afford it". All this so
that liberals can fix "the ills of society" by throwing taxpayer money
at it. That's counter to the basic principles of freedom (With
personal responsibility) and free market capitalism.

The further to the left your ideology goes, the closer to socialism
you get.

No, you don't "see it all the time".
You hear about it all the time on AM radio.
All most people know about liberals is what Rush LImbaugh tells them. :-)